- (1.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement on 22.10.2011 for appointment of LPG Distributors at different places in the State of U.P.. At sl. No. 213 of the said advertisement, the Corporation intended to appoint LPG Distributor for Auraiya. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners in both the writ petitions and some others submitted applications for being appointed as a Distributor for Auraiya. The petitioner, namely Smt. Astha Gupta, in Writ-C No. 28633 of 2013 was selected for the above location to be appointed as Distributor. Smt. Snehlata, petitioner in Writ-C No. 4300 of 2013, filed a complaint on the ground that the land offered by Smt. Astha Gupta for show room was not within the locality advertised for and accordingly her selection was not proper. An investigation was made on the basis of such complaint and the Corporation issued the letter of intent in favour of Smt. Astha Gupta on 22.11.2012. In the mean time, Smt. Snehlata, not being satisfied with the decision taken by the Corporation, filed Writ-C No. 4300 of 2013, praying for cancellation of selection of Smt. Astha Gupta and as an interim measure, this Court by an order dated 24.01.2013 directed that the letter of intent issued in favour of Smt. Astha Gupta be kept in abeyance. While the said writ application was pending, another investigation was done by the Corporation and an order was passed on 03.05.2013 cancelling the letter of intent issued in favour of Smt. Astha Gupta. Challenging the said order, Smt. Astha Gupta has filed Writ-C No. 28633 of 2013. Since both the writ petitions relate to selection of LPG Distributor for Auraiya, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) On perusal of the grounds taken in Writ-C No. 4300 of 2013 filed by Smt. Snehlata, it appears that the main ground taken by her is that the land, where the show room is to be located, offered by Smt. Astha Gupta is not within the locality advertised for and accordingly such land offered by Smt. Astha Gupta could not be accepted by the Corporation. We find from the advertisement that the district described is Auraiya and the location described is also Auraiya. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the description of the location as Auraiya obviously means that the location is to be within the limits of the municipality of district Auraiya and not beyond the municipal area. During the second verification, according to Sri Padia, it was found that the land for the show room offered by Smt. Astha Gupta was beyond the municipal limit of district Auraiya and accordingly the letter of intent was cancelled by the order dated 03.05.2013. Reliance was placed by Sri Padia, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on an intimation given by the Nagar Palika Parishad in Annexure 8 to Writ-C No. 28633 of 2013.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for Smt. Astha Gupta, referring to the advertisement submitted that the location advertised was for Auraiya and does not specify as to whether the location was to be within the municipal area or not. The location having been described as Auraiya, it has to cover the entire district and places beyond municipal area have to be also covered by the advertisement, therefore, even if the Court accepts the contention of the Corporation that the land offered by Smt. Astha Gupta is beyond the municipal limits of Auraiya, the application filed by her cannot be rejected on that ground.;